So, that new search engine Cuil? It’s completely rubbish.
Let’s take an obvious example: here. If you’re searching for “john band”, is it more likely that you want a chap named John Band, or is it more likely that you want the Elton John Band but can’t remember its lead singer’s first name? Clue: Cuil gets it wrong.
Lest you think I’m guilty of vanity here, let’s assume you’re looking for an ambiguous term that refers either to an actually-well-known-and-well-read blogger, or to some wanky Canadian jeans. It’s the jeans for you, mate.
There are other weirdnesses too: Chris gets attention; Jamie gets none…
Overall, Google remains the winner.
4 thoughts on “Cuil isn’t”
Heh. Just searched for ‘Five Chinese Crackers’ and got loads of links to me, but illustrated by pictures of Chinese people. Usually five of them.
It also has me in the category of American Children’s Writers.
I would tell you I’d done loads of searched for other people so you thought I wasn’t vain. But I never did.
Naf all for Question That. Rubbish.
(additionally, I'm *very* amused that the Elton John Band link above comes up with a picture of my dad. Who's also called John Band, facts-about-people-called-John-Band fans…)
And having done the same I find links to some extremely dodgy spam sites, which ask you to install software and won't take no for an answer. Google's quite neat now at flagging up dodgy sites. All the same, I wish them well. Google have got too much of a monopoly, and I don't like the fact that they keep search data …